AMD EPYC 9135 vs AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the AMD EPYC 9135 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, and the margins are often decisive. The only test where the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P takes the lead is PassMark data encryption, where it scores 43,619 against 40,295 for the EPYC 9135, a 7.6% advantage. That single win is notable, but it stands alone against a sweeping defeat elsewhere.

The largest single-test gap belongs to the EPYC 9135 in PassMark single-thread performance. It scores 3,672 versus 2,357 for the Embedded 8224P, a 55.8% advantage. This is not a narrow edge; it is a fundamental difference in per-core capability. The same pattern appears in Cinebench single-core tests, where the EPYC 9135 leads by 18.5% in R15 (699 vs. 590) and by 18.3% in R20 (2,913 vs. 2,462) and R23 (6,936 vs. 5,864). These consistent margins across three Cinebench generations indicate a structural performance advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

Multi-threaded workloads tell a similar story, though the gaps are smaller. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9135 scores 4,952 against 4,187 for the Embedded 8224P, a 18.3% lead. R20 multicore shows 20,637 vs. 17,447, again 18.3%. R23 multicore repeats the pattern: 49,136 vs. 41,542, also 18.3%. The uniformity of this 18.3% delta across all three Cinebench multicore tests is remarkable; it suggests the EPYC 9135's advantage scales consistently regardless of the rendering load.

PassMark multithread results confirm the trend: the EPYC 9135 scores 57,170 against 48,873 for the Embedded 8224P, a 17% lead. Physics performance, which is often sensitive to core efficiency and scheduler behavior, shows an even larger gap: 5,477 vs. 4,110, a 33.3% advantage for the EPYC 9135. This is the second-largest delta in the entire comparison, and it highlights how well the EPYC 9135 handles bursty, latency-sensitive workloads.

Extended instruction performance is another area where the EPYC 9135 excels. It scores 55,822 vs. 46,091, a 21.1% lead. This matters for workloads that leverage AVX-512 or similar instruction sets, where per-core throughput and memory bandwidth interact closely. Data compression also favors the EPYC 9135: 739,277 vs. 681,754, an 8.4% edge. Integer math and floating-point math both go to the EPYC 9135, with 5% and 5.5% leads respectively (202,962 vs. 193,256 and 126,679 vs. 120,066). Random string sorting shows a 5.3% advantage for the EPYC 9135 (90,064 vs. 85,505), and prime number finding is close, with the EPYC 9135 ahead by just 2.1% (292 vs. 286).

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The EPYC 9135 posts an average score of 82,980, while the Embedded 8224P averages 76,492. That is a difference of roughly 8.5% in aggregate performance. The EPYC 9135 sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Embedded 8224P sits in the 95th percentile. Both are high performers, but the EPYC 9135 is firmly above its rival in nearly every measurable dimension.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9135 dominates single-thread workloads. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3,672 versus 2,357 for the Embedded 8224P, a 55.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6,936 vs. 5,864, an 18.3% advantage.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P better at any workload?

A: Yes, one workload: data encryption. The Embedded 8224P scores 43,619 in PassMark data encryption, beating the EPYC 9135's 40,295 by 7.6%. This is the only head-to-head test where the Embedded 8224P wins.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The EPYC 9135 leads in every Cinebench multicore test by exactly 18.3%. R15 shows 4,952 vs. 4,187, R20 shows 20,637 vs. 17,447, and R23 shows 49,136 vs. 41,542. PassMark multithread also favors the EPYC 9135, 57,170 vs. 48,873, a 17% lead.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 9135 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having 50% more cores and threads, the Embedded 8224P still loses most multi-threaded tests, which shows the EPYC 9135's per-core efficiency advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9135 averages 82,980 across all recorded benchmarks. The Embedded 8224P averages 76,492. This puts the EPYC 9135 in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Embedded 8224P is in the 95th percentile.

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The EPYC 9135 has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Embedded 8224P has a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The difference in boost clock, 1.30 GHz, helps explain the EPYC 9135's large single-thread lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9135 is the clear choice for raw compute performance. Its wins span rendering, physics, integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, compression, sorting, and prime number finding. The 33.3% lead in PassMark physics (5,477 vs. 4,110) makes it particularly suited for simulation and real-time physics workloads. The 21.1% lead in extended instructions (55,822 vs. 46,091) suggests an edge for scientific computing and code that exploits advanced vector capabilities. The 55.8% single-thread lead is the most striking: any workload that cannot scale across many cores will run dramatically better on the EPYC 9135.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has a narrow but real niche: data encryption. Its 43,619 score in PassMark data encryption, 7.6% above the EPYC 9135, points to a hardware advantage in cryptographic operations. For environments that are heavily focused on encryption, such as secure gateways or certain network appliances, this could be the deciding factor. The Embedded 8224P also consumes less power, with a TDP of 160 versus 200 for the EPYC 9135, which may matter for thermally constrained embedded deployments. However, the performance data shows that for general compute, the EPYC 9135 wins nearly everywhere.

The core-count discrepancy is worth noting. The Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 9135. Yet the EPYC 9135 still wins Cinebench multicore by 18.3% and PassMark multithread by 17%. This means the EPYC 9135 delivers more performance per core, and its higher clocks (3.65 GHz base, 4.30 GHz boost vs. 2.55 GHz base, 3.00 GHz boost) overcome the Embedded 8224P's core-count advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every foundational specification. The EPYC 9135 uses 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Embedded 8224P uses 24 cores and 48 threads. Clock speeds diverge sharply: the EPYC 9135 runs at 3.65 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the Embedded 8224P runs at 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Power draw also differs: the EPYC 9135 has a TDP of 200, while the Embedded 8224P has a TDP of 160.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The EPYC 9135 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Embedded 8224P uses AMD Socket SP6. Memory channels differ as well: the EPYC 9135 supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the Embedded 8224P supports six-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. PCIe lane counts also favor the EPYC 9135: it provides 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) for the Embedded 8224P.

The process nodes differ by one generation. The EPYC 9135 is built on a 4 nm process, while the Embedded 8224P uses a 5 nm process. Transistor counts are similar but not identical: the EPYC 9135 has 16,630 million transistors on a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Embedded 8224P has 17,750 million transistors on a die size of 2x 73 mm². The Embedded 8224P packs more transistors and a larger die, but the EPYC 9135's smaller node and higher clocks deliver better performance.

Cache layouts also diverge. The EPYC 9135 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Embedded 8224P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory. The EPYC 9135 has a launch MSRP of $1214, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Embedded 8224P.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9135 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, and is built on Zen 5 architecture. The Embedded 8224P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, codenamed Siena, and uses Zen 4c architecture. This is a generational difference: Zen 5 is newer than Zen 4c, and the data reflects that in performance. The EPYC 9135 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Embedded 8224P uses a 5 nm process from the same foundry.

The core designs differ fundamentally. Zen 5 in the EPYC 9135 is a full-performance core design, whereas Zen 4c in the Embedded 8224P is a dense core design optimized for power efficiency and core count. This explains why the Embedded 8224P has more cores (24 vs. 16) but lower clocks and lower per-core performance. The L1 cache difference (80 KB per core vs. 64 KB per core) also reflects the more robust per-core resources in the EPYC 9135.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The EPYC 9135's twelve-channel memory bus provides 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 2.5 times the 230.4 GB/s of the Embedded 8224P's six-channel bus. This bandwidth advantage is critical for multi-threaded workloads that stream large datasets, and it contributes to the EPYC 9135's consistent 18.3% lead in Cinebench multicore tests.

The PCIe implementation also differs. The EPYC 9135 offers 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Embedded 8224P offers 96 Gen 5 lanes. For systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network adapters, the EPYC 9135 provides more headroom for expansion. The Embedded 8224P's lower lane count aligns with its embedded positioning, where I/O requirements may be more constrained.

Release dates confirm the generational gap. The EPYC 9135 was released on 2024-10-09, while the Embedded 8224P was released on 2023-09-17. A year of architectural development separates the two, and the benchmark data shows that the newer Zen 5 design translates into measurable performance gains across nearly every test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9135 is the faster processor, winning 16 of 17 head-to-head tests with an average benchmark score of 82,980 versus 76,492 for the Embedded 8224P. Its single-thread lead of 55.8% in PassMark and its 18.3% advantage across all Cinebench multicore tests make it the superior choice for general server and workstation workloads. The 33.3% lead in physics and 21.1% lead in extended instructions further cement its position for compute-heavy applications.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is not without merit. Its 7.6% win in data encryption is a genuine strength, and its 24 cores and 48 threads provide more parallel resources than the EPYC 9135's 16 cores and 32 threads. Its lower TDP of 160 versus 200 makes it more suitable for power-sensitive embedded deployments. The six-channel memory bus and 96 PCIe lanes are sufficient for many embedded use cases, and the SP6 socket may be more accessible in compact systems.

However, the performance gap is too large to ignore. The EPYC 9135's 96th percentile ranking versus the Embedded 8224P's 95th percentile is a small difference, but the underlying scores tell a decisive story. Users who need maximum throughput, especially in single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads, should choose the EPYC 9135. Users who prioritize encryption performance, lower power draw, or higher core counts in an embedded form factor should consider the Embedded 8224P. For every other metric, the EPYC 9135 leads.